Case 1801011/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Voice Marketing Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1801011/2020
- Decision date
- 18 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file a response by the due date after the proceedings were sent to its operating address, and the tribunal proceeded under Rule 21 on the material available. The judgment records that the claimant, Mr F Kunda, succeeded in his complaints of constructive unfair dismissal, described as an assertion of a statutory right, and unlawful deductions from wages.
The tribunal awarded the claimant a total of £3,536 as a compensatory award. It recorded that there was no basic award because the claimant had insufficient service, and that any unlawful deduction of wages was included within the overall award. No separate split between the two successful complaints was given.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal described this as a claim for constructive unfair dismissal (assertion of a statutory right) and found it succeeded under the Rule 21 judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the unlawful deductions from wages complaint succeeded and stated that any unlawful deduction of wages was included in the award. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,536
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £3,536
- compensatory remedy recorded
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.